I often vacillate between intuitively understanding the concept of becoming and questioning if I actually do. I would love to hear, in your own words, how you personally define becoming. Or, if you'd like to point me in the direction of a definition by a Dhamma teacher you feel explains it well or a previous post on this board from years past, I’m open to it all.

Thank you!!

With gratitude :Śūn

Live in joy, In love, Even among those who hate. Live in joy, In health, Even among the afflicted. Live in joy, In peace, Even among the troubled. Look within. Be still. — Dhammapada

Being a human being is not an end in itself. It’s only a transition. It can never be a perfect state in itself. It’s merely a convention. — Luang Por Sumedho

Given the definition...if you're released of the idea of a "self" I could see this desire to "become" would naturally drop away. It's because we're attached to this idea of the "self" and wish to "turn it into" something that we keep becoming. Although, the desire to "become" is important in the Buddhist Path, because you should want to become Awakened.

Right now, do we have becoming? Are we aware of this becoming? For example, take the trees in the monastery. The abbot of the monastery can take birth as a worm in every tree in the monastery if he isn't aware of himself, if he feels that it is really his monastery. This grasping at ''my'' monastery with ''my'' orchard and ''my'' trees is the worm that latches on there. If there are thousands of trees, he will become a worm thousands of times. This is becoming. When the trees are cut or meet with any harm, the worms are affected; the mind is shaken and takes birth with all this anxiety. Then there is the suffering of birth, the suffering of aging, and so forth. Are you aware of the way this happens?

Well, those objects in our homes or our orchards are still a little far away. Let's look right at ourselves sitting here. We are composed of the five aggregates and the four elements. These sankhāras are designated as a self. Do you see these sankhāras and these suppositions as they really are? If you don't see the truth of them, there is becoming, being gladdened or depressed over the five khandhas, and we take birth, with all the resultant sufferings. This rebirth happens right now, in the present. This glass breaks right now, and we are upset right now. This glass isn't broken now, and we are happy about it now. This is how it happens, being upset or being happy without any wisdom in control. One only meets with ruination. You don't need to look far away to understand this. When you focus your attention here, you can know whether or not there is becoming. Then, when it is happening, are you aware of it? Are you aware of convention and supposition? Do you understand them? It's the grasping attachment that is the vital point, whether or not we are really believing in the designations of me and mine. This grasping is the worm, and it is what causes birth.

Where is this attachment? Grasping onto form, feeling, perception, thoughts, and consciousness, we attach to happiness and unhappiness, and we become obscured and take birth. It happens when we have contact through the senses. The eyes see forms, and it happens in the present. This is what the Buddha wanted us to look at, to recognize becoming and birth as they occur through our senses. If we know them, we can let go, internally and externally, the inner senses and the external objects. This can be seen in the present. It's not something that happens when we die from this life. It's the eye seeing forms right now, the ear hearing sounds right now, the nose smelling aromas right now, the tongue tasting flavours right now. Are you taking birth with them? Be aware and recognize birth right as it happens. This way is better.

To do this requires having wisdom to steadily apply mindfulness and clear comprehension. Then you can be aware of yourself and know when you are undergoing becoming and birth. You won't need to ask a fortune-teller.

It is a synonym for perpetuation of the dynamic sequence of consciousnesses in the context of (intuitively and habitually) affirming sense of self when it arises. Preceding consciousness becomes a cause for the succeeding one and the succeeding consciousness becomes effect (manifestation) of the preceding one.

To be considered in this context:

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I often vacillate between intuitively understanding the concept of becoming and questioning if I actually do. I would love to hear, in your own words, how you personally define becoming. Or, if you'd like to point me in the direction of a definition by a Dhamma teacher you feel explains it well or a previous post on this board from years past, I’m open to it all.

The way I understand it, becoming (bhava) is predominately a mental process that arises due to the presence of clinging (upadana) in the mind with regard to the five aggregates, and which acts as a condition for the birth (jati) of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta). As such, it's also an integral component of the post-mortem process of rebirth (punabhava, literally 'again becoming') and the "production of renewed existence" (SN 12.64) for those, lime myself, who accept the possibility.

In fact, I think becoming is the point where the cosmological and psychological models or processes of dependent co-arising primarily converge — although the psychological aspect clearly dominates/is the focal point, in my opinion — and once that process is stopped, the mind is open to the deathless (amata), which I interpret in two main ways, i.e., deathlessness in the sense of not having to be born ever again and so not having to die (both in terms of the conceit 'I am' and post-mortem rebirth) and in the sense of no longer being harmed by the thought of death. In SN 12.2, for example, becoming is defined as "sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming." In AN 3.76, however, becoming is treated slightly differently, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes at the bottom of his translation that:

Notice that the Buddha, instead of giving a definition of becoming (bhava) in response to this question, simply notes that becoming occurs on three levels. Nowhere in the suttas does he define the term becoming, but a survey of how he uses the term in different contexts suggests that it means a sense of identity in a particular world of experience: your sense of what you are, focused on a particular desire, in your personal sense of the world as related to that desire. In other words, it is both a psychological and a cosmological concept. For more on this topic, see The Paradox of Becoming, Introduction and Chapter One.

So, ultimately then, becoming, is a mental process that has the potential to lead to "renewed becoming in the future," both in a psychological and cosmological sense, i.e., acting as a condition for the birth, ageing, and death (or arising, changing, and disappearance as per AN 3.47) of the conceit 'I am,' which occurs innumerable times throughout one's life (think of the imagery of SN 12.61), as well as a condition for birth, ageing, and death in the broader sense. And while it's true that most of the descriptions of dependent co-arising are geared more towards the cosmological or life-to-life model, there are place like MN 140 where I think both are illustrated in tandem, with the psychological aspects of becoming (the arising and ceasing of self-identity view) being placed within the broader, cosmological framework:

"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."

Or an alternate translation from the appendix to P. A. Payutto's Dependent Origination: The Buddhist Law of Conditionality:

"The deep-grained attachment to the feeling of self does not arise for one who is endowed with these four conditions (pañña, wisdom; sacca, integrity; caga, generosity; and upasama, calm.). With no perception of self clouding one's consciousness one is said to be a muni, a peaceful one." On what account did I say this? Perceptions such as 'I am,' 'I am not,' 'I will be,' 'I will not be,' 'I will have form,' 'I will not have form,' 'I will have no form,' 'I will have perception,' 'I will not have perception,' 'I will neither have nor not have perception,' monks, are an affliction, an ulcer, a dart. By transcending these perceptions one is a muni, a peaceful one.

"Monks, the muni is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not confused, nor does he yearn. There are no longer any causes for birth in him. Not being born, how can he age? Not aging, how can he die? Not dying, how can he be confused? Not being confused, how can he be desirous? "The deep-grained attachment to the feeling of self does not arise for one who is endowed with these four conditions. With no perception of self clouding one's consciousness, one is a muni, a peaceful one" -- It was on this account that this statement was made.

The reason I think the psychological aspects are so important and tend to stress them more is because that's where the work of the meditator is done, where we can observe these processes taking place in the present. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process ("A Verb for Nirvana"). And when you boil it all down, this process is primarily a mental one.

Last edited by Jason on Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

8. While you are training the mind, one thing — strange and striking — may occur without your intending it. That is, the mind will withdraw from its external objects and gather into a single whole, letting go of all labels and attachments dealing with past or future. There will be just bare awareness paired with its preoccupation in the present. This is something with no sense of "inside" or "outside" — a condition whose features are peculiar to the mind itself. It is as if everything has undergone a revolution.This is the mind coming to its own level: the bhavanga. In this moment, everything has reference only to the mind. Even though life may still be going on, the mind when it reaches this level lets go of all attachments to the body, and goes inward to experience nothing but its own object, all by itself. This is termed bhava-citta, the mind on its own level. The mind on its own level still has a refined version of the five khandhas complete within it, and so can still experience birth and states of becoming, and give rise to continued births in the future.Reaching this state is somewhat like dozing off and dreaming. The difference depends on how much alertness there is. Those who are collected and perceptive will — when the event first occurs — be aware of what is happening and what they are experiencing, and so won't get excited or upset. Those who are gullible and not very mindful, though, will be just like a person who dozes off and dreams. When they come to, they will tend to be startled or get misled by the visions they may happen to see. But when they have trained themselves until they are skilled at giving rise to this state often, their sense of mindfulness will improve and their various visions will go away. Gradually they will gain insight until they see into natural conditions as they actually are.

The phenomenon discussed in point 8 — even though it doesn't give rise to discernment capable of exploring into the patterns of cause and effect in a wide-ranging way — is still a preliminary stage in training the mind. It can suppress the five Hindrances and at the same time give rise to a sense of peace and well-being in the present. If it is properly developed so that it doesn't deteriorate, it will lead to a good rebirth in the future, in line with one's karmic background. Incidentally, when visions and signs of various sorts appear, it's usually in the mental moment we are discussing here. But this doesn't mean that when the mind reaches this stage there will have to be visions or signs in every case.

In fact, I think becoming is the point where the cosmological and psychological models or processes of dependent co-arising primarily converge

Compare this article:

Epiphanies and synchronicities are concerned with the harmony and balance between inner and outer; between, on the one hand, the world of mind and spirit and, on the other, the world of matter, space, time and causality. On an individual basis, synchronicities may be experienced as patterns, pregnant with meaning, that spill over from the world of dreams, memories and visions into similar patterns of concrete physical events in external, "objective" world. Indeed, the whole question of synchronicity causes us to question the very assumptions upon which our science is based; notions of objects that are well defined in space and time and of the physical interactions between them; assumptions as to the nature of an independent reality, in the sense of spatially localized states whose properties can be defined independent of any observer; assumptions as to the nature of space and of time. But one can go even deeper and question the fragmentation, within our current world view, between inner and outer, the desire for an objective science which has no room for values, qualities and the nature of subjective experience.Several times in this essay I have used the term Inscape and by this I wish to convey the authentic voice, or inner-dwellingness of things and of our experience of them. By Inscape I wish to suggest the inexhaustible nature of each human being, tree, rock, star and atom, and that there is no most fundamental level, no all embracing account or law of a perception or encounter. Rather one attempts to engage the inner authenticity of the world.And this, to me, clearly implies that there can be no single explanation, theory or level within nature. We must seek complementary descriptions rather than the single, all-embracing, complete and logically consistent rational accounts which attempt to answer all questions and close all doors, We must seek to engage nature using all the richness that is possible within human language, by drawing upon metaphor, allusion and ambiguity in order to create coherent yet complementary accounts.I am suggesting that the science of inscape and landscape requires a degree of creativity within its language, including the ability to deal with metaphor and ambiguity and to accommodate the qualities and values of our experience.One could also, perhaps, call into question some of the cherished notions about time, space and causality that underlie our current notions of reality. For synchronicity itself appears to be a phenomena that transcends the restructions of time and space. Or, to put it another way, all that exists is the present, for the present is the given of our experience. It is only from within the present that one can discover and unfold the past - as Marcel Proust well understood. And from within the present one can explore those tendencies and patterns that may lead into the future.The present, therefore, becomes an Inscape, something that is inexhaustible in its nature. Within the present are, contained and enfolded, the orders of time. But this is not the rather mechanical, linear arrow of time of the physicist, bur rather it is time that we ourselves generate as we seek to unfold the patterns that lie within the present.It is from within this well of time, this inexhaustible inscape of the present that the mind excavates the patterns of past and future, unfoldings dynamics of matter and touches the muminious field of meaning that suffuses the universe. Indeed, the linear, arrow of time of traditional physics becomes no more that a superficial reflection of this much deeper order.

Śūnyatā wrote: I would love to hear, in your own words, how you personally define becoming.

These sections from SN12.2 seem relevant: they describe how the process of becoming in the 3 realms results in birth, aging, death and dukkha generally.

"And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming."

"From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death."

Sorry for not using my own words, but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates bhava as "existence," not "becoming."From the Introduction to The Saṃyutta Nikāya:

Bhava, in MLDB, was translated "being." In seeking an alternative, I had first experimented with "becoming," but when the shortcomings in this choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to "existence," used in my earlier translations. Bhava, however, is not "existence" in the sense of the most universal ontological category, that which is shared by everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in a mathematical equation. Existence in the latter sense is covered by the verb atthi and the abstract noun atthitā. Bhava is concrete sentient existence in one of the three realms of existence posited by Buddhist cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death. In the formula of dependent origination it is understood to mean both (i) the active side of life that produces rebirth into a particular mode of sentient existence, in other words rebirth-producing kamma; and (ii) the mode of sentient existence that results from such activity.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

In fact, I think becoming is the point where the cosmological and psychological models or processes of dependent co-arising primarily converge

Compare this article:

Epiphanies and synchronicities are concerned with the harmony and balance between inner and outer; between, on the one hand, the world of mind and spirit and, on the other, the world of matter, space, time and causality. On an individual basis, synchronicities may be experienced as patterns, pregnant with meaning, that spill over from the world of dreams, memories and visions into similar patterns of concrete physical events in external, "objective" world. Indeed, the whole question of synchronicity causes us to question the very assumptions upon which our science is based; notions of objects that are well defined in space and time and of the physical interactions between them; assumptions as to the nature of an independent reality, in the sense of spatially localized states whose properties can be defined independent of any observer; assumptions as to the nature of space and of time. But one can go even deeper and question the fragmentation, within our current world view, between inner and outer, the desire for an objective science which has no room for values, qualities and the nature of subjective experience.Several times in this essay I have used the term Inscape and by this I wish to convey the authentic voice, or inner-dwellingness of things and of our experience of them. By Inscape I wish to suggest the inexhaustible nature of each human being, tree, rock, star and atom, and that there is no most fundamental level, no all embracing account or law of a perception or encounter. Rather one attempts to engage the inner authenticity of the world.And this, to me, clearly implies that there can be no single explanation, theory or level within nature. We must seek complementary descriptions rather than the single, all-embracing, complete and logically consistent rational accounts which attempt to answer all questions and close all doors, We must seek to engage nature using all the richness that is possible within human language, by drawing upon metaphor, allusion and ambiguity in order to create coherent yet complementary accounts.I am suggesting that the science of inscape and landscape requires a degree of creativity within its language, including the ability to deal with metaphor and ambiguity and to accommodate the qualities and values of our experience.One could also, perhaps, call into question some of the cherished notions about time, space and causality that underlie our current notions of reality. For synchronicity itself appears to be a phenomena that transcends the restructions of time and space. Or, to put it another way, all that exists is the present, for the present is the given of our experience. It is only from within the present that one can discover and unfold the past - as Marcel Proust well understood. And from within the present one can explore those tendencies and patterns that may lead into the future.The present, therefore, becomes an Inscape, something that is inexhaustible in its nature. Within the present are, contained and enfolded, the orders of time. But this is not the rather mechanical, linear arrow of time of the physicist, bur rather it is time that we ourselves generate as we seek to unfold the patterns that lie within the present.It is from within this well of time, this inexhaustible inscape of the present that the mind excavates the patterns of past and future, unfoldings dynamics of matter and touches the muminious field of meaning that suffuses the universe. Indeed, the linear, arrow of time of traditional physics becomes no more that a superficial reflection of this much deeper order.

My understanding too is that the notion of becoming has, er, become a key conceptual category for radical lines of inquiry across different fields. I've mentioned this work before, A World of Becoming, by political theorist William Connolly. It takes a cross-disciplinary approach, from complexity theory to theoretical biology to neuroscience to philosophy to cultural theory, to explore how our contemporary situation calls for participation in a world of becoming, whereby individuals and constituencies adopt an ethos of care and engagement to experiment with different modes of spatiotemporality and relationality. Here's an excerpt from its fascinating 'postlude':

Do you know what the world is to me?

A colossus of diverse energies, without beginning or end, with each flowing over, through, and around others, generating new currents and eddies.

A play of waves, forces, and perceptions on different scales of complexity, endurance, and time, with some swelling as others subside, with perhaps long cycles of repetition, but none that simply repeats those preceding.

....

Many strive and connect to others in such a world, seeking to amplify existential gratitude for the world as they comprehend it.

Others resent either this world or the different account of if it they embrace.

I tend to think of becoming from the point of view of the fire sermon. A flame is in a constant state of becoming as long as there is fuel to support the fire. When the fuel is exhausted, the flame is no longer in a state of becoming and is released. The metaphor works for people who are in a state of continuous clinging (becoming) until craving is exhausted.

I tend to think of becoming from the point of view of the fire sermon. A flame is in a constant state of becoming as long as there is fuel to support the fire. When the fuel is exhausted, the flame is no longer in a state of becoming and is released. The metaphor works for people who are in a state of continuous clinging (becoming) until craving is exhausted.

Kind regards...

Wow. That actually makes a ridiculous amount of sense. Thanks!

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

“One perception arises in me, friend: `cessation of existence is Nibbàna’, `cessation of existence is Nibbàna’, and an other perception fades out in me: `cessation of existence is Nibbana cessation of existence is Nibbàna’.

Bhavatanha - clinging to existence

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

`Those beings who approach realms of form and those that are in formless realms, not understanding well the fact of cessation, come again and again to existence.' (trans. Bhikkhu Nanananda SEEING THROUGH- A Guide to Insight Meditation -)

Dvayatànupassanà Sutta

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

In the “non-three lives interpretation” of the paṭicca-samuppāda, bhāva is the idea that “I am” or “I exist” – part of a systematic misinterpretation of experience which leads to this whole mass of suffering. So in order to properly reflect this, it makes more sense to use a word such as ‘being’ or ‘existing', as opposed to 'becoming', since these words clearly convey acceptance of the idea of a self which is paramount for what comes next in the PS.

Is there any reason why we might want to differentiate bhava "being" from satta "being"?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]